4 ms·

It's the job of the police to de-escalate. Sometimes, this may fail and some harm might be done in the hands of the police. However, being a police officer shou

by waon 6y ago

It's the job of the police to de-escalate. Sometimes, this may fail and some harm might be done in the hands of the police. However, being a police officer should never be a free ticket to inflict violence with impunity, and this is what people are advocating for. As for the military, it simply isn't their job to police their own citizens. Frankly, I don't know why I'm having to say this. I'm just stating the obvious here.

0xy 6y ago
How do you de-escalate an occupied building on fire with violent protestors preventing emergency services from saving children? The police are obviously totally overwhelmed, and like it or not the military has the legal authority to operate domestically and without them being there more people could've died. I don't understand your position. There's an occupied building on fire, with children inside. Protesters are attacking fire crews. What is the ideal outcome? I didn't see a fireman with his knee on anyone's neck. Why attack them, if not to cause destruction and murder people? Arson against residential buildings is terrorism. That's it.
- waon 6y ago
  How do you stop civil unrest by ordering (or threatening to, at the moment) the military to shoot at people? You're making it sound like shooting is the only solution, but it's not. There are many forms of non-lethal force you could use to deal with the kind of situation you're talking about. Anyways, you're ignoring the bigger picture, the mountain of bodies that led to this situation in the first place. The civil unrest we're seeing wouldn't have happened at all if policing across the country was done in a sane manner. The numerous reports of unjustified police violence in the midst of this crisis is already making things worse, and there's no need for the military to add to that.
gnaritas 6y ago
> It's the job of the police to de-escalate. No, it isn't. It's the job of the police to enforce the law, if necessary with overwhelming force.

by waon 6y ago

0xy 6y ago

How do you de-escalate an occupied building on fire with violent protestors preventing emergency services from saving children? The police are obviously totally overwhelmed, and like it or not the military has the legal authority to operate domestically and without them being there more people could've died. I don't understand your position. There's an occupied building on fire, with children inside. Protesters are attacking fire crews. What is the ideal outcome? I didn't see a fireman with his knee on anyone's neck. Why attack them, if not to cause destruction and murder people? Arson against residential buildings is terrorism. That's it.

waon 6y ago
How do you stop civil unrest by ordering (or threatening to, at the moment) the military to shoot at people? You're making it sound like shooting is the only solution, but it's not. There are many forms of non-lethal force you could use to deal with the kind of situation you're talking about. Anyways, you're ignoring the bigger picture, the mountain of bodies that led to this situation in the first place. The civil unrest we're seeing wouldn't have happened at all if policing across the country was done in a sane manner. The numerous reports of unjustified police violence in the midst of this crisis is already making things worse, and there's no need for the military to add to that.

gnaritas 6y ago

> It's the job of the police to de-escalate. No, it isn't. It's the job of the police to enforce the law, if necessary with overwhelming force.